5 ms·

If you don't like a job find one that pays better. I was working something similar at university and rather enjoyed being paid to read the news and summarise th

If you don't like a job find one that pays better. I was working something similar at university and rather enjoyed being paid to read the news and summarise them. I didn't want it to be a career and neither did the company I worked for.

DoctorOW 4y ago
...and what happens when you can't find one? The narrative that there are all these jobs being turned down is false. The jobs that would hire someone like Stackhouse are all pretty much the same as the one he has. This wouldn't matter so much if it wasn't matter of a life and death but they won't even let someone survive anymore.
- throw009 4y ago
  Why we all go to your house and you start paying us to do jobs that you don't value. This is the new safety net and it's an improvement in expecting a corporation to do it.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  You make yourself more attractive to employers by acquiring or improving your skills or learning to market yourself better.
- surement 4y ago
  > and what happens when you can't find one? sounds like what you're saying is that without this employer, this employee would have a worse or no job; if you start from that and then give them this job then it sounds pretty positive > they won't even let someone survive anymore. who's they?
  - DoctorOW 4y ago
    You're circling the answer. Every industry is experiencing a massive amount of consolidation. While people have discussed the lack of competition's impacts on consumers, this is getting close to mentioning that even though there are technically more jobs there's fewer actual employers.
    - surement 4y ago
      do you have data to back that up?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - DoctorOW 4y ago
        I can't find a good actual link to the entire data set with but looking at the data in the US Bureau of Labor Statistics' website you can see both the average number of hours worked are trending downwards, having not been above the 35 hour threshold for a full time job since the 1980's. I have not found reputable data that differentiates full time employed into "One full-time job" vs. "Multiple part time jobs". Chart: https://i.imgur.com/Ah5YKd0.jpg https://i.imgur.com/Ah5YKd0.jpg
throwbadubadu 4y ago
You have been downvoted, but I also wonder a bit what the real story (or debate) is here. Some jobs will pay the lowest wage... that it is these jobs? I actually would rate and expect these jobs pay lower than the typical lowest pay jobs which require physical labor like the typical low pay jobs in fast food, or building cleaning? Or the specific amount given current circumstances? True.. on the other hand still well above the minimum wage by law in most European countries.. maybe not comparable well, but still not much out of range. That rich companies pay low wages? Yeah, absurd and unfair, but that unfortunately never hold a rich company back where it could just pay that (I'd like different regulation here). So the problem is really independent of these specific jobs or companies? And the answer to this is better regulation and worker protection laws, that many frown upon?
- lovich 4y ago
  When companies are paying so low that the workers can’t support themselves(which US minimum wage does not pay enough for) then the companies are not working for societies benefit. They are getting subsidized by whatever welfare their employees are getting, such as the famous example of Walmart teaching their employees to sign up for food stamps. They are also refusing to engage in the type of innovation that capitalism is supposed to generate in the face of scarce goods, because they aren’t paying for this externality. Much in the same way that you can’t pay an industry supplying you with critical parts forever because then the parts will eventually stop being built, companies shouldn’t be allowed to pay for less than the necessary amount to support the workers living. If this makes the job they are doing not valuable enough then the companies shouldn’t be engaged in the work that can’t be profitable without subsidies, ask the government for specific earmarked subsidizes if it generates a positive externality, or actually do some innovation and figure out a way to make the work profitable
  - throwbadubadu 4y ago
    > companies are not working for societies benefit That was my point, or "really?" Again, I'd like it to be more that way, but given current laws and what most people agree to: Do they even have to? No!
flangola7 4y ago
Ah yes, the mythical land of jobbies. Unfortunately we need solutions that work in real life and not an Ayn Rand fantasy.

DoctorOW 4y ago

...and what happens when you can't find one? The narrative that there are all these jobs being turned down is false. The jobs that would hire someone like Stackhouse are all pretty much the same as the one he has. This wouldn't matter so much if it wasn't matter of a life and death but they won't even let someone survive anymore.

throw009 4y ago
Why we all go to your house and you start paying us to do jobs that you don't value. This is the new safety net and it's an improvement in expecting a corporation to do it.
charcircuit 4y ago
You make yourself more attractive to employers by acquiring or improving your skills or learning to market yourself better.
surement 4y ago
> and what happens when you can't find one? sounds like what you're saying is that without this employer, this employee would have a worse or no job; if you start from that and then give them this job then it sounds pretty positive > they won't even let someone survive anymore. who's they?
- DoctorOW 4y ago
  You're circling the answer. Every industry is experiencing a massive amount of consolidation. While people have discussed the lack of competition's impacts on consumers, this is getting close to mentioning that even though there are technically more jobs there's fewer actual employers.
  - surement 4y ago
    do you have data to back that up?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - DoctorOW 4y ago
      I can't find a good actual link to the entire data set with but looking at the data in the US Bureau of Labor Statistics' website you can see both the average number of hours worked are trending downwards, having not been above the 35 hour threshold for a full time job since the 1980's. I have not found reputable data that differentiates full time employed into "One full-time job" vs. "Multiple part time jobs". Chart: https://i.imgur.com/Ah5YKd0.jpg https://i.imgur.com/Ah5YKd0.jpg

throwbadubadu 4y ago

You have been downvoted, but I also wonder a bit what the real story (or debate) is here. Some jobs will pay the lowest wage... that it is these jobs? I actually would rate and expect these jobs pay lower than the typical lowest pay jobs which require physical labor like the typical low pay jobs in fast food, or building cleaning? Or the specific amount given current circumstances? True.. on the other hand still well above the minimum wage by law in most European countries.. maybe not comparable well, but still not much out of range. That rich companies pay low wages? Yeah, absurd and unfair, but that unfortunately never hold a rich company back where it could just pay that (I'd like different regulation here). So the problem is really independent of these specific jobs or companies? And the answer to this is better regulation and worker protection laws, that many frown upon?

lovich 4y ago
When companies are paying so low that the workers can’t support themselves(which US minimum wage does not pay enough for) then the companies are not working for societies benefit. They are getting subsidized by whatever welfare their employees are getting, such as the famous example of Walmart teaching their employees to sign up for food stamps. They are also refusing to engage in the type of innovation that capitalism is supposed to generate in the face of scarce goods, because they aren’t paying for this externality. Much in the same way that you can’t pay an industry supplying you with critical parts forever because then the parts will eventually stop being built, companies shouldn’t be allowed to pay for less than the necessary amount to support the workers living. If this makes the job they are doing not valuable enough then the companies shouldn’t be engaged in the work that can’t be profitable without subsidies, ask the government for specific earmarked subsidizes if it generates a positive externality, or actually do some innovation and figure out a way to make the work profitable
- throwbadubadu 4y ago
  > companies are not working for societies benefit That was my point, or "really?" Again, I'd like it to be more that way, but given current laws and what most people agree to: Do they even have to? No!

flangola7 4y ago

Ah yes, the mythical land of jobbies. Unfortunately we need solutions that work in real life and not an Ayn Rand fantasy.